John Magno
|
| Posted: 04/26/2003, 7:25 AM |
|
I purchased CodeCharge Studio 2.0 and I must say I am quite impressed with it. What is the difference between it and the standard CodeCharge?
Thanks!
|
|
|
 |
RipCurl
|
| Posted: 04/28/2003, 1:19 PM |
|
CC is easier to use.
CCS isn't.
CCS is bloated.
CC isn't.
|
|
|
|
DaveRexel
|
| Posted: 04/28/2003, 1:46 PM |
|
:QUOTE:
CC is easier to use.
CCS isn't.
CCS is bloated.
CC isn't.
:/QUOTE:
Having used and tested both programs for some time I would like to present you with a more nuanced comparison.
Both GUIs are unusual if you have used other common website tools. Even if I'm used to complicated GUIs as in 3dmax these two interfaces took a long time to get used to. Score CC/CCS 0:0
I still feel that CCS in design mode is flakey and trying to drag stuff around results in utter disaster sometimes. This is the result of the CCS use of the MS-IE html component. Score CC/CCS 1:0
The valid inputs for your code are hidden in various places in CC and exposed in CCS page_events file (single view with all the extra code) Score CC/CCS 0:1
Speed and ease of use, this will undoubtably go to CC as it has a simpler instruction set. Score CC/CCS 1:0
Here are some important aspects of CCS not present in CC
- Plug-ins Score CC/CCS 0:1
- Visual SQL Query window with view of query result Score CC/CCS 0:1
- Visual layout with context-sensitive Properties Inspector Score CC/CCS 0:1
More functionality and wizard based generation of entire sites or individual common site requisites, alternatively you can insert wizard based forms into your sites generated pages from the GUI. For this level of configurable wizard based site generation the honours go to CCS. Score CC/CCS 0:1
Major caveats :
No provision for XML as an input format. Score CC/CCS 0:0
No easy way at present in CC 2.05 or CCS 2.0.6.11 to include a users own global functions file in the site/project definition IMHO a glaring omission in both programs so getting your own functions into your pages can be tedious even if you are a coder. Score CC/CCS 0:0
Also for the non-coder both programs present an additional layer of coding (both programs have a list of addressable functions that access component values and displays), This additional syntax has to be learnt with CCS requiring some understanding of objects, classes etc while CC allows the simpler non object-oriented code thus presenting non-coders with a more approacable learning curve. As both programs profess to give non-coders RAD I give this round to CC. Score CC/CCS 1:0
Present development :
CC has not had an update in a long time. CCS is being updated quite frequently with more issues resolved for every iteration. Whatever the developers reasons I feel inclined to follow their progress and help them refine the program. Score CC/CCS 0:1
And the winner is...
None : However the above may total up I've not intended any score total as the list can go on forever, I use both programs and like them both and while I have a wishlist I draw no conclusion:
Both programs are unique and excellent at site generation of database content in a variety of languages/environments so your own requirements and resources will decide what's best.
Hope this sheds some light.
Dave
|
|
|
|
John Magno
|
| Posted: 04/28/2003, 4:18 PM |
|
Thank you Dave for your detailed response. Are there any user's groups in the Boston area?
|
|
|
|
|
